Barnaby's bloghttps://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/barnabypace
en-GB(C) 2020https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssWarwick Blogs, University of Warwick, https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk120Why Not Ditch the Dealers in Death? byhttps://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/barnabypace/entry/why_not_ditch/
<p>by Barnaby Pace<br />
Originally published in Dissident Warwick Issue 6 31/4/2009</p>
<p>When a company breaks an environmental regulation, it shows that there is some negligence. When a company breaks a few regulations, then the company is probably knowingly not bothering. When a company breaks arms export rules selling to dictators, bribes public officials and spies on those opposing it then what should we make of it? This latter situation is one that we find ourselves in when looking at the largest arms company in the UK; <span class="caps">BAE</span> Systems. Sadly it is not a unique case. When investigating the dark pasts of arms companies it is easy to find dirt, but hard to stop finding more and more.</p>
<p>Arms companies in the UK and around the world are not like every other company, and yet they are treated at least as well. We can see a vivid example of this at University of Warwick Careers fairs where arms companies stand side by side with financial houses, telecommunications companies and railway engineers pretending to be normal engineering companies. Our University is happy to promote arms companies and not consider their background. The University believes that keeping good industrial relations brings in research funding and helps maintain their reputation.</p>
<p>A similar situation can been seen at the national level. In 2006, when <span class="caps">BAE</span> systems were being pursued by the Serious Fraud Office, the US Department Of Justice (DOJ) and the Scorpions (South African organised crime and corruption investigative unit)[i] and many other groups for six different bribery and corruption cases[ii] and had been recently caught spying on the eminently peaceful Campaign Against the Arms Trade group[iii], then you might think that as the UK government you might cut your losses and disown the company giving them up as a bad lot. However, the Blair government at the time instead chose to shut down the Serious Fraud Office investigation, cease co-operating with the <span class="caps">US DOJ</span> investigation[iv] and proceed to hum loudly with its fingers in its ears, deaf to accusations of foul play. In his autobiography, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook observed &ldquo;I never once knew number 10 come up with any decision that would be incommoding to British Aerospace&rdquo;[v].</p>
<p>This single example, one of many, in which governments support arms companies, is extraordinary and stupefying. Not only are there individual instances of favouring a single company but a systemic issue of unconditional support for the industry. The UK arms export industry employs 65,000[vi] people, yet receives an estimated government subsidy of &pound;851 million per year[vii], this works out to &pound;13,106.30[viii] per employee per year. &pound;13,106.30 might not seem too much if it were being spent on an needy area of society, for example employing teachers or nurses, but instead it goes to an industry run for profit whose interests are not aligned with societal good.</p>
<p>It is important to remember that the arms trade is not run for the benefit of society, the UK or the world. The arms industry is privately owned and run, like any other capitalist organisation, with the aim of accruing profit and accumulating wealth. This is potentially disastrous when the method of making money is by causing and exacerbating conflict and proliferating weapons, to whomever can pay. The immorality or illegality of any deal can be trumped by the opportunity for profit, profit which can easily offset any potential legal issues in the future. Therefore if it is expedient to bribe a government official to persuade them to spend their money, not on development or the fight against <span class="caps">AIDS</span> but on purchasing military equipment then an arms company will do so[ix].</p>
<p>Why, despite all the many moral, social, economic and pragmatic issues with the arms industry does our government support companies such as <span class="caps">BAE</span> Systems? Do they believe that they receive better equipment for the UK military, when the UK Treasury says that by biasing our military&rsquo;s arms procurement towards UK arms companies a single arms deal can cost the UK taxpayer &pound;1 billion pounds more than it has to[x]? Indeed you only have to speak to any UK military serviceperson to be told how awful the <span class="caps">BAE</span> Systems-made <span class="caps">SA80</span> standard rifle is. If we were to cut the UK&rsquo;s arms exports by half, we would lose 49,000 jobs. However, with the now available capital and skills from halving arms exports, 67,400 jobs would be created in the civil sector in five years, according to a report by the <span class="caps">MOD</span> and York Universityvi. This is due the relative inefficiency of the arms industry. There are few possible reasons left for why the UK government gives the treatment it does. The arms industry is seen by some as a symbol of international killing power. Think of it as top trumps for defence ministers. Both the Conservative and Labour governments have been deep enough into the murky and corrupt world of the arms trade to be unwilling to confess to their crimes now. The UK would be better off without the black mark of its arms industry; we could use those skilled workers working in the industry for purposes that help society, for example creating ways to combat climate change instead of creating the means for death, destruction and misery for people around the world.</p>
<p><em>____________________________</em><br />
[i] &ldquo;The Arms Deal in your Pocket&rdquo;, Paul Holden, Jonathan Ball Publishers, 2008<br />
[ii] &ldquo;BAE: A company out of control&rdquo;, <span class="caps">CAAT</span>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/21/bae.foreignpolicy">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/21/bae.foreignpolicy</a><br />
[iii] &ldquo;Martin and Me&rdquo;, Mark Thomas, The Guardian, 4/12/2007,<br />
[iv] Labour tries to block new <span class="caps">BAE</span> inquiry, David Leigh &amp; Rob Evans, The Guardian, 21/9/2007, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/21/bae.foreignpolicy">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/21/bae.foreignpolicy</a><br />
[v] The Point of Departure: Diaries from the Front Bench, Robin Cook, 2004<br />
[vi] &ldquo;The economic cost and benefits of UK defence exports&rdquo;, Chalmers, Davies, Hartley &amp; Wilkinson, Centre for Defence Economics University of York, November 2001, <a href="http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/documents/research/defence_exports_nov01.pdf">http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/documents/research/defence_exports_nov01.pdf</a><br />
[vii] Escaping the Subsidy Trap Why arms exports are bad for Britain&rdquo;, <span class="caps">BASIC</span>, Saferworld &amp; Oxford Research Group, 2004, <a href="http://www.basicint.org/pubs/subsidy.pdf">http://www.basicint.org/pubs/subsidy.pdf</a><br />
[viii] &ldquo;As used on the famous Nelson Mandela&rdquo;, Mark Thomas, Ebury Press, 2006<br />
[ix] <span class="caps">BAE</span> corruption investigation switches to Tanzania, David Leigh &amp; Rob Evans, The Guardian, 12/4/2008, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/12/bae.baesystemsbusiness">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/12/bae.baesystemsbusiness</a><br />
[x] &ldquo;Wrangling ends with order for Hawks&rdquo;, David Gow &amp; Michael White, The Guardian, 31/7/2003</p>Arms TradeBaeCareers ServiceEthicsPoliticsFri, 15 May 2009 15:36:23 GMThttps://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/barnabypace/entry/why_not_ditch/#comments094d7399212fe7ed012144eabf5a05310Warwick’s unethical career services byhttps://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/barnabypace/entry/warwicks_unethical_career/
<p>By Barnaby Pace (Thanks to Todd Higgs for his editing)<br />
Originally Published 16/1/09 on the <span class="caps">CAAT</span> Blog</p>
<p>On Thursday 15 January a group of Warwick University students, in opposition to the arms trade and in solidarity with Gaza, protested at a recruitment event run by <span class="caps">BAE</span> and Warwick University Careers Service.</p>
<p>Why <span class="caps">BAE</span>? Is it especially unethical? Just look at their record. <span class="caps">BAE</span> is the third largest arms manufacturer in the world. So much has come to light in the last few years with the discoveries, investigations and court cases surrounding the Al-Yamamah arms deal to Saudi Arabia, in which <span class="caps">BAE</span> systems was the primary supplier of weaponry. It is alleged that <span class="caps">BAE</span> paid over &pound;1 billion in bribes to members of the Saudi regime.</p>
<p>But this case is not unique &ndash; <span class="caps">BAE</span> is currently being investigated over bribery allegations Arms companies are often not willing to disclose who their customers are (especially for arms components); this may be common practice among many businesses, citing &ldquo;commercial confidentiality&rdquo;. However, most businesses do not need to hide that they sold fighter jets to Robert Mugabe (as <span class="caps">BAE</span> and Rolls Royce have) or torture equipment for Guantanamo Bay (BAE subsidiary Hiatts). Nor are reputable business alleged to give a cool &pound;1 million in bribes to the late, but not lamented, General Pinochet (BAE again). All good reasons for protesting and the inclusion of Israel in its (very colourful) list of customers made action particularly important at this time for us.</p>
<p>On their way into the recruitment event, attendees were leafleted with our <span class="caps">BAE</span> alternative careers guide. At the start of the presentation, a group of students stood up, with one delivering an excellent and emotive speech about the darker side of a career with <span class="caps">BAE</span>. During the talk itself a second group disrupted the presentation with another speech, heroically ignoring the pleas of the Careers Service to be quiet. The many students keen to ask questions about the unethical nature of the company led to the group question session being abandoned.</p>
<p>It is strengthening to be part of a broader campaign across universities against companies such as <span class="caps">BAE</span> and after our action we had much excited chatter about activism over a pint or two. And many thanks to all those in the <span class="caps">CAAT</span> office who worked to research and write the information used in our handouts.</p>
<p>Want to know more: See <a href="http://weaponsoutofwarwick.wordpress.com/">http://weaponsoutofwarwick.wordpress.com/</a></p>
<p>Remember: Universities Day of Action on 11 February 2009</p>ActivisimArms TradeBaeCareers ServiceFri, 30 Jan 2009 21:25:34 GMThttps://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/barnabypace/entry/warwicks_unethical_career/#comments094d73991ef9906b011f296eb3e91e9b0